★ The Sports Examiner: Chronicling the key competitive, economic and political forces shaping elite sport and the Olympic Movement.★
★ To get the daily Sports Examiner Recap by e-mail: sign up here! ★
≡ TENNIS ≡
In an action sure to raise more questions about the January 2021 Chinese swimming positives incident, the World Anti-Doping Agency announced Saturday:
“The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) confirms that on Thursday 26 September, it lodged an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the case of Italian tennis player, Jannik Sinner, who was found by an independent tribunal of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) to bear no fault or negligence having twice tested positive for clostebol, a prohibited substance, in March 2024.
“It is WADA’s view that the finding of ‘no fault or negligence’ was not correct under the applicable rules. WADA is seeking a period of ineligibility of between one and two years. WADA is not seeking a disqualification of any results, save that which has already been imposed by the tribunal of first instance.”
The no. 1-ranked Sinner (ITA), the U.S. Open winner, tested positive twice within nine days for the steroid clostebol, first during the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, California and then eight days later in an out-of-competition test. The ITIA, in its 20 August announcement of the no-fault finding, explained what happened next:
● “Under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), when a player returns an Adverse Analytical Finding for a non-specified substance, like clostebol, a provisional suspension is automatically applied. The player has the right to apply to an independent tribunal chair appointed by Sport Resolutions to have that provisional suspension lifted.”
● “As such, after each positive test, a provisional suspension was applied. On both occasions, Sinner successfully appealed the provisional suspension and so has been able to continue playing.”
● “The player explained that the substance had entered their system as a result of contamination from a support team member, who had been applying an over-the-counter spray (available in Italy) containing clostebol to their own skin to treat a small wound. That support team member applied the spray between 5 and 13 March, during which time they also provided daily massages and sports therapy to Sinner, resulting in unknowing transdermal contamination.”
● “Following consultation with scientific experts, who concluded that the player’s explanation was credible, the ITIA did not oppose the player’s appeals to lift the provisional suspensions.”
The matter was referred to an independent panel not affiliated with the ITIA, which heard the matter with a three-member panel and filed a 19 August decision. Their decision was:
“Under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), when a player returns an Adverse Analytical Finding for a non-specified substance, like clostebol, a provisional suspension is automatically applied. The player has the right to apply to an independent tribunal chair appointed by Sport Resolutions to have that provisional suspension lifted.
“As such, after each positive test, a provisional suspension was applied. On both occasions, Sinner successfully appealed the provisional suspension and so has been able to continue playing.
“The player explained that the substance had entered their system as a result of contamination from a support team member, who had been applying an over-the-counter spray (available in Italy) containing clostebol to their own skin to treat a small wound. That support team member applied the spray between 5 and 13 March, during which time they also provided daily massages and sports therapy to Sinner, resulting in unknowing transdermal contamination.
“Following consultation with scientific experts, who concluded that the player’s explanation was credible, the ITIA did not oppose the player’s appeals to lift the provisional suspensions.”
So WADA will try to convince the Court of Arbitration for Sport that the decision of the independent panel did not properly find “No Fault or Negligence.” The applicable Tennis Anti-Doping Programme rule 10.5 states simply:
“Elimination of the period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence
If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case that they bear No Fault or Negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will be eliminated.”
This appeal will take some months to be heard and decided; the next tennis major is the Australian Open, from 6-26 January in Melbourne.
Observed: This decision to appeal the finding of no fault by Sinner is bound to inflame WADA’s critics on the January 2021 Chinese doping incident in which 23 swimmers were found to have traces of the prohibited substance Trimetazidine in their samples.
In those cases, there were no suspensions of any kind imposed by the Chinese Anti-Doping Agency and WADA did not appeal. Here, in the Sinner case, there were provisional suspensions imposed immediately, which Sinner appealed successfully.
The ITIA, in a statement, politely noted:
“The process was run according to World Anti-Doping Code guidelines; however, the ITIA acknowledges and respects WADA’s right to appeal the independent tribunal’s decision in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.”
WADA will score some points with the tennis community for appealing this case, but it only raises more questions about its inaction – as has been pointed out by many others – in the China swimming incident from 2021.
¶
★ Receive our exclusive, weekday TSX Recap by e-mail by clicking here.
★ Sign up a friend to receive the TSX Recap by clicking here.
★ Please consider a donation here to keep this site going.
For our updated, 547-event International Sports Calendar for the rest of 2024 and beyond, by date and by sport, click here!
